________________
Paksikasutratıka (Pakkhiya edition 67a/b) as a víddhasampradāya by which perhaps likewise the Āvassayacuņni is meant : “kim soyam (ie, saucam) ?" Reply : saccam (satyam) soyam. Question : "kim saccam ?” Naraya, who cannot give information (already the previous question had to be answered by a Tirthamkara), obtains, by meditation, remembrance of former existence, and becomes sambuddha. padhamam ajjhayanam "soyayvam eva" icc-āiyam vadati evam sesani vi datthavvāni?. The same story in Sanskrit Slokas Rşimandalavytti 47 a (Berlin MS.1912) on the basis of Isimandala st. 43f. (cp. Weber II 948), where Naraya is called kacchullas with the conclusion:
ad yam adhyayanam satyabhidham kstva siyam yayau (19)
iti Nayama Nārada-rși-sambandhaḥ. Here, the first section erroneously gets the name Satya, corresponding to the original (Sacca) a further proof of the insecurity of the tradition.
P. 494
What is reported about Naraya here, is a main feature of the narration, while in other cases, as will be shown in the course of our examination, our text, if a relation can be proved with the present expedients, has something by far more accidental as its starting point. With this it can be compared that from the mouth of Vaddhamana (29), i.e. Mahavira, of his adversary Mamkhaliputta (11) i.e Gośāla Maskariputra, and of his pathmaker Pasa (31), i.e. Pārsva, we learn nothing particularly characteristic of them. Every other Jaina Rşi of our text could have said the same, only in the case of Pāsa, the monk is called a cāujjama niantha. That the three have been placed at all in the row of the Rșis, is very strange. For the stories, the already mentioned Isimandala and its commentary, the Rşiman. dalavṛtti, among others, supply the basis of the criticism referred to. Asiya Davila (3), originally of course Asita Devala, who, however, is without any relation to the life of the Buddha, with the Jainas, forms a direct connection with our text in Isim 125. If it is said there :
bhaviyavyam bho khalu savva-kama-viraena' eyam ajjhayanam
bhasittu Devilāsuya-rāyarisi siva-suham patto. this cannot be separated from the Rşi-word bhaviyavvam khalu bho savvaleVõvaratenam here. There is no allusion to the fact that King Devilasuta-a
7. A remark like this latter one may have been the cause why the modern commentary
to Jinaprabha's Siddhāntāgamastava st. 9 designates Näraya as the author of the Isibhāsiyāim (Kavyamālā P. VII, p. 88; reference in Klatt's hand-written Ono
masticon). 8. This designation (according to Leumann an adjective in Weber II 474) is given to
N. in the Näyädhammakahão (Agamod. edition 243 b). Malayagiri takes it for a name
(etan-nāmā tāpasaḥ 220 a). 9. According to the Senapraśna of śubhavijaya (Devchand L. p. 51, 1917), 9 Nāradas
were contemporary to Vasudeva, the 9th of whom was called Unmukha (Abhidhānarājendra 4, 2013).
